Ha Ha ! STUPID AMERICANS !!!

[mistermack]

The difference between a republic and another kind of democracy is that, in a republic, everyone who governs is elected by the people. Britain is excluded from this definition because the queen is the titular head of state.

Titular, of course, means having a title, not a reality. So this kind of democracy is actually a republic, because everyone who actually has the power to govern, is elected by the people. The queen is a mock governor, not a real one.

If we accept that the British royalty are purely fake governors, then all the British commonwealth democracies are republics.

There is another factor, and that is public consent. While technically, the public don't elect the head of state, in practice, the queen is there because the people want it.
If there was overwhelming support for getting rid of the Monarchy now, it would happen. Just like Scottish independence. There was nothing in law that says that Scotland could choose to split.
But if they do, it will happen.

Even though I'm a republican, I have to admit that the monarchy is there by consent, even if it hasn't been voted for.
I would point out though, that that consent is artificially engineered by constant indoctrination of the public by the BBC and the other news media.

[JimC]

The difference between a republic and another kind of democracy is that, in a republic, everyone who governs is elected by the people. Britain is excluded from this definition because the queen is the titular head of state.

Titular, of course, means having a title, not a reality. So this kind of democracy is actually a republic, because everyone who actually has the power to govern, is elected by the people. The queen is a mock governor, not a real one.

If we accept that the British royalty are purely fake governors, then all the British commonwealth democracies are republics.

There is another factor, and that is public consent. While technically, the public don't elect the head of state, in practice, the queen is there because the people want it.
If there was overwhelming support for getting rid of the Monarchy now, it would happen. Just like Scottish independence. There was nothing in law that says that Scotland could choose to split.
But if they do, it will happen.

Even though I'm a republican, I have to admit that the monarchy is there by consent, even if it hasn't been voted for.
I would point out though, that that consent is artificially engineered by constant indoctrination of the public by the BBC and the other news media.

I would change "engineered" to supported, or at the most, maintained. Indoctrination is also somewhat too strong a term, I think...

[Svartalf]

Tell all that to the bunch of fascists who use that argument to justify the US becoming increasingly undemocratic/plutocratic.

[Seth]

But the US are a Republic, not a democracy.

However, it is one that touts the idea that it is ability and not birth that determines success in life...

An idea that is meaningless spin, in the face of a powerful plutocracy...

Wrong. The us touts the idea of equal opportunity, not equality of outcome. Any person is free to succeed or fail on their own merits and abilities. There are no legal obstacles to individual economic success as there are in both socialism and feudalistic systems that make religious, hereditary or class based bars to social or economic advancement.

There is no guarantee of success or safety net against failure, but everyone has the same opportunity to try for the brass ring.

[Blind groper]

Seth

I would not agree that socialism creates barriers to individual success, any more than American republicanism does. Socialism is not related to that aspect of politics, and can, and does usually incorporate equal opportunity.

[JimC]

But the US are a Republic, not a democracy.

However, it is one that touts the idea that it is ability and not birth that determines success in life...

An idea that is meaningless spin, in the face of a powerful plutocracy...

Wrong. The us touts the idea of equal opportunity, not equality of outcome. Any person is free to succeed or fail on their own merits and abilities. There are no legal obstacles to individual economic success as there are in both socialism and feudalistic systems that make religious, hereditary or class based bars to social or economic advancement.

There is no guarantee of success or safety net against failure, but everyone has the same opportunity to try for the brass ring.

Absolute and complete nonsense. It was "equality of opportunity" I meant,by the way...

If one is born into wealthy and power, one's likelihood of succeeding in material terms is vastly higher than those who are not.

And, to complete the picture, those who accrue wealth and power have unprecedented abilities to use that wealth to subvert the political process to maintain their own interest. The same is true, if to a lesser extent, in Oz and other western democracies...

[pErvinalia]

But the US are a Republic, not a democracy.

However, it is one that touts the idea that it is ability and not birth that determines success in life...

An idea that is meaningless spin, in the face of a powerful plutocracy...

Wrong. The us touts the idea of equal opportunity, not equality of outcome. Any person is free to succeed or fail on their own merits and abilities. There are no legal obstacles to individual economic success as there are in both socialism and feudalistic systems that make religious, hereditary or class based bars to social or economic advancement.

There is no guarantee of success or safety net against failure, but everyone has the same opportunity to try for the brass ring.

[Hermit]

Even though I'm a republican, I have to admit that the monarchy is there by consent, even if it hasn't been voted for.
I would point out though, that that consent is artificially engineered by constant indoctrination of the public by the BBC and the other news media.

I would change "engineered" to supported, or at the most, maintained. Indoctrination is also somewhat too strong a term, I think...

While "indoctrination" doesn't fit, "supported" and "maintained", while true, are inadequate. The controllers of the mass media are fully aware that they can manipulate what and how people think. Reports get a particular spin, sometimes subtle, at other times brazen, in order to do so. This aspect is not really captured by the use of "supported" and "maintained".

A man was in New York's central park, when a dog went wild and attacked a young boy. The man was able to grab the dog by the neck, pulling it off the boy and choking it to death. A reporter for the New York Times comes to interview him, congratulating him on his act of heroism. He suggests the headline: "NEW YORKER SAVES THE LIFE OF A YOUNG BOY!" The man told him: "I'm not from New York." Ok then, how about: "AMERICAN HERO SAVES THE DAY." The man said 'I'm not American'. "Then, where are you from?" asked the reporter. "I'm from Pakistan" the man answered. The next day the headline read: "MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALIST STRANGLES DOG IN CENTRAL PARK".

[Seth]

Seth

I would not agree that socialism creates barriers to individual success, any more than American republicanism does. Socialism is not related to that aspect of politics, and can, and does usually incorporate equal opportunity.

Horseshit. Socialism throws obstacles in the way of anyone who threatens to succeed to a greater degree than others because one of the fundamental precepts of socialism is that economies and social status are zero-sum games where one person can only rise at the expense of others. Socialism is inherently about equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunity.

[Seth]

But the US are a Republic, not a democracy.

However, it is one that touts the idea that it is ability and not birth that determines success in life...

An idea that is meaningless spin, in the face of a powerful plutocracy...

Wrong. The us touts the idea of equal opportunity, not equality of outcome. Any person is free to succeed or fail on their own merits and abilities. There are no legal obstacles to individual economic success as there are in both socialism and feudalistic systems that make religious, hereditary or class based bars to social or economic advancement.

There is no guarantee of success or safety net against failure, but everyone has the same opportunity to try for the brass ring.

Absolute and complete nonsense. It was "equality of opportunity" I meant,by the way...

If one is born into wealthy and power, one's likelihood of succeeding in material terms is vastly higher than those who are not.

You're not talking about opportunity here, you're talking about equality of starting position and equality of outcomes. Totally different.

And, to complete the picture, those who accrue wealth and power have unprecedented abilities to use that wealth to subvert the political process to maintain their own interest. The same is true, if to a lesser extent, in Oz and other western democracies...

This is conspiracy theorist nonsense.

[Blind groper]

Seth

As we have said before, you have a weird and inaccurate view of socialism. My country is socialist from your view point, since the state makes provision for the care of unemployed, sick and elderly. Yet we have a thriving free enterprise economy. Our richest man (total wealth $ 6 billion) started as a tow truck driver, which shows that our socialist society still permits equal opportunity to get rich.

[JimC]

Seth

As we have said before, you have a weird and inaccurate view of socialism. My country is socialist from your view point, since the state makes provision for the care of unemployed, sick and elderly. Yet we have a thriving free enterprise economy. Our richest man (total wealth $ 6 billion) started as a tow truck driver, which shows that our socialist society still permits equal opportunity to get rich.

It is not so much the getting rich that is the issue, but the fact that his offspring will have a considerable head start on all others, and that, if he wishes, via political donations etc. he can have undue influence on decisions, to his benefit..

[JimC]

Even though I'm a republican, I have to admit that the monarchy is there by consent, even if it hasn't been voted for.
I would point out though, that that consent is artificially engineered by constant indoctrination of the public by the BBC and the other news media.

I would change "engineered" to supported, or at the most, maintained. Indoctrination is also somewhat too strong a term, I think...

While "indoctrination" doesn't fit, "supported" and "maintained", while true, are inadequate. The controllers of the mass media are fully aware that they can manipulate what and how people think. Reports get a particular spin, sometimes subtle, at other times brazen, in order to do so. This aspect is not really captured by the use of "supported" and "maintained".

A man was in New York's central park, when a dog went wild and attacked a young boy. The man was able to grab the dog by the neck, pulling it off the boy and choking it to death. A reporter for the New York Times comes to interview him, congratulating him on his act of heroism. He suggests the headline: "NEW YORKER SAVES THE LIFE OF A YOUNG BOY!" The man told him: "I'm not from New York." Ok then, how about: "AMERICAN HERO SAVES THE DAY." The man said 'I'm not American'. "Then, where are you from?" asked the reporter. "I'm from Pakistan" the man answered. The next day the headline read: "MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALIST STRANGLES DOG IN CENTRAL PARK".

I disagreed with "engineered" because it implied that pro-royal sentiment was being created de novo. In both Britain and Australia, a deep vein of sentimental attachment to royalty has existed for a long, long time, and is probably held by a majority. Current media practice may well act to maintain that, but it does not need to create it.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

You're not talking about opportunity here, you're talking about equality of starting position and equality of outcomes. Totally different.

Don't tell me what I'm talking about. I made no mention of wanting to ensure "equality of outcomes"; an impossibility, and a complete straw man. No rational left-leaning commentator would ever demand "equality of outcomes"; perhaps it was a plank of the old, failed Marxist position, but it was meaningless rhetoric both then and now.

"Starting position", in the sense of the wealth and contacts available from parents and their friends is a major factor in "opportunity", the other, of course, being innate ability.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

You're not talking about opportunity here, you're talking about equality of starting position and equality of outcomes. Totally different.

Don't tell me what I'm talking about.

I'll do as I please.

I made no mention of wanting to ensure "equality of outcomes"; an impossibility, and a complete straw man. No rational left-leaning commentator would ever demand "equality of outcomes"; perhaps it was a plank of the old, failed Marxist position, but it was meaningless rhetoric both then and now.

But that's exactly what you imply when you bitch about rich people having an unequal opportunity at economic success. They don't, they just have a higher starting point, but they can fail as miserably as anyone else, or they can succeed. That doesn't mean that their wealth has been taken from someone else or that their wealth places barriers in the way of less wealthy people who want to advance economically and socially. In fact, if it means anything it means that they provide greater opportunities to the less wealthy to get wealthy because they keep the economic engines running, employ people, produce wealth and give entrepreneurs who want to grasp the opportunity they have something to reach for.

"Starting position", in the sense of the wealth and contacts available from parents and their friends is a major factor in "opportunity", the other, of course, being innate ability.

No it's not, at least not in the definition of "opportunity" used in the US, which means "to not place artificial or legal barriers between the poor and middle class and the wealthy that prevent them from even attempting to seize prosperity.

That's what "equal opportunity" means in the US, not "equal footing" or "level playing field" or anything else. What you want is to drag down the wealthy to the level of the poor because you think it's unfair that they have a head start in the race to prosperity, but the fact is that it's not a race in that there is one winner and everybody else loses, it's personal challenge that each individual can accept or decline that is not constrained by class structures or laws that prevent the individual from becoming a success such as the caste laws in India that bind "untouchables" permanently to the underclass because they are not permitted to even try to break out of the caste system to prosper on their own initiative.

Equal opportunity means only the opportunity to succeed or fail on your own merits and abilities. It's not a race where the rich start halfway around the track. That's a zero sum game and equal opportunity in the US is not a zero sum game.